What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

To disbelieve you need to understand the concept of God/s to reject it,

No I don't ,

"There is an invisible man "

"I don't believe you"

There you go rejection with but one attribute

Actually, you've proved it, thank you. You understand the concept of an invisible man, you understand the concept of the potential of an invisible man
standing behind you and have rejected it. If you didn't know what the concept of an invisible man was, you wouldn't be in a position to accept of
reject it with any degree of certainty.

It's not obvious to me, where you want to go with this categorization, but just for the record: Black is technically an absence of colour. Maybe
that's what you meant?

Operating from a base of categories is a VERY tricky business (though not completely worthless if treated with care). Unfortunately 'fringers' of all
denominations just love the careless version, because their mindsets are constructed thusly, that they believe they have 'proved' something by using
it.

"Oh Lahwdy, you who majically can turn nothing into something, black into white and take away the legs from talking snakes. Why can't you just turn
atheists into theists, so we get rid of them once and for all. Truly: The atheists p*sses us off. Thank you Lawhdy for listening at least. Amen and
glory be. Out"

It's not obvious to me, where you want to go with this categorization, but just for the record: Black is technically an absence of colour. Maybe
that's what you meant?

Actually, it depends on your perspective. Colour, as light, uses the "additive theory", in which case, you're correct, black is the absence of
colour. But colour, as a pigment, uses the "subtractive theory", in which case, black is the amalgam of all colours.

Rather ironic, I guess. Black being a non-colour is a science kind of thing (light analysis), while black being all colours is an art kind of thing
(paint being a good example.) Wonder if there's any applicability there?

You can't have a culture with supernatural beliefs and shamanism without having shamans interacting with archetypes of the collective
unconscious in symbolic, internally generated mythological forms.

Thats what a god is.

So they aren't really atheists either.

Gods are internally structured poetic images...which can be interacted with. They can be conjured by shamanic, mystical means and conversations can be
held with them. They communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance with the shaman who acts as a middle-man on behalf of the culture.

I don't need to prove it because it's already probable. Have you counted all those galaxies yet like I told you? I guess not. There's probably more
than just billions, as astronomers have said. There could be this many; 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, yet you think other civilizations are improbable.
What a bunch of bull# that is. It's not based on "belief", it's based on logical reasoning and empirical observation. Now, if this solar system
was all that existed, then other civilizations would be improbable. There's the flaw in your argument because this planetary system is
obviously one among quadrillion quadrillions of them, maybe even more than that.

["You can't have a culture with supernatural beliefs and shamanism without having shamans interacting with archetypes of the collective unconscious
in symbolic, internally generated mythological forms."]

Now we just have to establish the factual existence of 'the collective unconscious' (symbolically etc or not is optional), and everything will be
honky-dory.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.